State v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 22 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) whether the declarant was a victim or an observer; (2) the declarant’s purpose in speaking with the officer (e.g., to obtain assistance); (3) whether it was the police or the declarant who initiated the conversation; (4) the location where the statements were made (e.g., the de-clarant’s home, a squad car, or the police station); (5) the declarant’s emotional state when the statements were made; (6) the level of formality and structure of the conversation between the officer and declarant; (7) the officers’ purpose in speaking with the declarant (e.g., to secure the scene, determine what happened, or collect evidence); and (8) if and how the statements were recorded.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Krasky · 570 F. Supp. 2d 1098 - Bobadilla v. Carlson

2. “[i]n Minnesota, a defendant will be found to have forfeited [his confrontation claim] if the state proves that the defendant engaged in wrongful conduct, that he intended to procure the witness's unavailability, and that the wrongful conduct actually did procure the witness’s unavailability.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Wright

3. “did not violate [defendant's] Confrontation Clause rights under Crawford " because "when nontestimonial hearsay is at issue, states are permitted to exempt such statements from Confrontation Clause scrutiny as they see fit.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Compan v. People